I didn't even get up till 1 PM (yay for Christmas break). Then I came here. *sigh*

I'm actually surprised to not see the place overrun with LOTR discussion (even off-topic). Okay, JCC is, but I'm surprised we don't have the usual rush of "Will the lava place look like Mount Doom?", "which did you like better ROTK or AOTC" and "Peter Jackson should direct SW, for some reason" threads.

*sigh* Well, I guess it's a little more appropriate than some other threads people try to make relating SW to the other big movies. How 'bout them "there should be bullet time in Ep3 'cause Matrix is hipandkewl" threads?

I do agree that the effects in Reloaded and Revolutions were dodgy at times, and that they sucked me out of the movie experience. There was one scene with Gollum in ROTK that threatened to do something similar, just because it was *clear* CGI. The rest of the time WETA convinced me that Gollum was real, and I do believe he is the finest CGI creation to date.

i agree rpeugh....it seems like it is trendy for critics and others to unfairly bash the prequels when they have not even given them a chance, but then those same people embrace and praise LotR and Matrix.....i don't mind the praising of LotR because it is well deserved, but i don't really like all the hype that accompanied the matrix movies.....i actually hated reloaded in theaters mainly because i remember the effects supervisor for the matrix sayng that their effects were excellent and they had raised the bar and blah blah blah but during the burly brawl you can totally tell its CGI and if you can't you need to go to the eye doctor....but then when reloaded released on DVD i was yearning for it....i love it now and think its a fantastic movie.....some think the dialogue is too deep or confusing but i enjoy it and think its one of the better movies of the year....i love the LotR trilogy......but i really really dislike how there are mad props given to WETA for gollum but there are no props given to ILM for their accomplishments.....frankly, the way i see it, ILM led the way in computer effects and CGI would not be where it is today had it not been pioneered by ILM.....yoda looked wonderful in AotC and jar jar has never gotten a complaint from me either....i really don't see the reason why so many people are critical of the PT.....i think it is that they feel that the OT "feeling" is missing in the PT....whatever...i have my opinions and they have theirs.....

I bet Peter Jackson took his inspiration for how to shoot the siege of Gondor by watching how freakin' nuts and overrun this forum was in late May 2002.

The night AOTC opened, while all the other moderators were off to the midnight showings, I (a newbie mdoerator at the time) was left alone in AOTC. The admin action log was kind of funny. I locked about 50+ threads in a span of eight hours, banned eight or nine people, and made another 100+ post edits. It was crazy. I was up until 4am, and seriously considering quiting that moderating stuff.

the prequels don't get bashed because they feature CGI. No critic says this. Many people however feel that the effects are too cartoony, too silly, too shiney and ultimately create an artificial world that people can't identify with.
LOTR films practically everything on location. The amount of visual effects shots is only a fraction of what the prequels use. CGI is only used when no other way can be found to make the scene. The actors stand in a real location in front of real mountains, talking to real actors sitting on real horses. All the actors have mentioned how this aids their performances tremendously.
The first Matrix had very few CGI shots. Bullet time was used 4 times in Film 1, the shortest shot being 1 second long (Morpheus being shot in the foot) and the longest shot being 4 seconds long (Neo dodging bullets). So this cannot be described as "effects taking over the story". It's a bit different for M2 and M3 but then those didn't get that many good reviews anyway.

As for Gollum - people consider him to be the greatest CGI creature ever for a very simple reason - he's an ARTISTIC triumph. He acts well, is emotionally compelling and completely realistic. I have no idea whether the Hulk was more difficult to achieve than Gollum (as ILM claim) but frankly I don't care. I and most other people judge those things purely on their artistic merit, i.e. how well is the character executed. And in that respect no ILM character comes close to Gollum and especially not the Hulk who never ever comes across as a living thing. Why is it anyway that all ILM creatures and characters tend to have this annoying shiney look?

`I was up until 4am, and seriously considering quiting that moderating stuff.'

And do you really think changing your name will stop us from seeking you out on the opening night of EPIII?

Odd thing about the hulk. The close-ups appear to me to be more convincing than when pulled away from him. Gollum in TTT can't equal that, so when ROTK opens on the 26th here in Australia I wonder if I'll see more detailed work?

For all the reasons folks say that Gollum is so fantastic, they really are the same things that Jar-Jar accomplished 6 years earlier. It's the lack of connection to the character of Jar-Jar that took the monumental digital achievement and essentially made it into as if he had never been invented.

The effects are better in the SW films. They just are--and I say that as someone who's a big Matrix & LOTR fan too.

For that matter, I don't recall any critics claiming anything different, although many of them have complained that GL didn't use his (better) special effects correctly. (They said there were too many of them, they distracted from the story, etc.)

This does not mean that the scene sucked. It didn't. It was okay--transition more than anything. But the background was *really* cool. I'd never seen a special effects-created universe look that real before.

There are slow moments in the Matrix films too--far slower than anything in the PT except maybe the meeting with Queen Jamillia in ATOC. The difference is that in the Matrix movies, characters are filmed in relative closeup against drab gray backgrounds as they're slogging through dull plot exposition. That creates a vague sense of intimacy with the characters, even if they have nothing interesting to say.

My one major complaint about the PT films is that the removal of environmental constraints allowed the background to "take over." In the OT, GL was mostly stuck with whatever sets he could manage to build, so the action tended to take place in relatively small spaces. (The crowded Lars kitchen, the crowded Falcon cockpit, everybody bunched together on the edge of the carbonite freezing chamber, etc.) This forced a certain level of interaction between the characters, which helped build some subtext for their relationships. It also helped that the camera stayed focused relatively closely on the actors. Think of how many wide-angle panoramic shots there are in the PT vs. the OT. That's fantastic for showing us the backdrop of Coruscant, but not necessarily great for focusing on the subtle interactions between the actors. (We're sure not going to get a satisfactory account of their relationships from the dialogue. GL even says that the SW films are basically meant to be "silent movies." It's all supposed to be visual.)

I don't think anyone's going to argue that Mark Hammill and Carrie Fisher are stronger actors than Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen. However, they were allowed to interact in close proximity with each other and in contact with mostly real stuff, which helped their performances. The comparatively "loving" attention of the cameras didn't hurt either.

I really hope we get more visual intimacy in Ep. III. Somebody tell GL it would help it "visually transition" into the style of the OT films. Yeah. That's it.

Why is it that when the prequels get criticised for something, LOTR and the Matrix are immune to the criticism of effects and actually get complimented for it?

It tends to happen to films (of which there are many, not just the PT) that feature technical greatness but are not much admired for their content. Fair? Maybe not. But I believe that is at the root of the problem.

Now I want to make it clear that I'm quite aware that the PT still has plenty of admirers, but as for being universally admired by most fans and critics, far from it. My overwhelming experience has been that the PT is seen as having delivered in the visuals/FX department, but not in the characterization and emotional resonance departments (which are far more important elements in making what will ultimately be considered a good film). I know of no one, outside of ardent PT fans, that truly believes that the PT has strong characterizations and a heartfelt story. Heap a lot of great FX on top of that questionable foundation and you still don't have a film that will garner a lot of praise, no matter how great the FX are.

By the way, the last two Matrix films have not received any more slack from fans or critics than the PT has, for the same reasons. As for LotR, I believe that the effects are given more praise because the films are widely regarded as having first and foremost succeeded in having strong characterizations and a heartfelt story, and the effects then compliment that. Call it a trickle-down effect.

Lucas himself once said "a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." In other words, an audience that isn't involved in the story won't appreciate the effects, no matter now great they are. I believe that this is in a nutshell is what has happened with the PT for many people.

Jar Jar may have been a massive achievement in CGI, but Gollum took it one step further, and everything about him is just stunning. The amount of detail that they put into him is just incredible. In a way, it's like comparing the puppet Yoda in Empire Strikes Back to the Gizmo and the Gremlins in (yes, you've guessed it) Gremlins, as while Yoda was a fantastic achievement, it still amazes me now to think that they were all puppets in Gremlins, as they are so utterly convincing. Now, you can take the piss if you like, but I think the same is true of Jar Jar and Gollum. Of course, the thing about Gollum is that his character is so wonderfully intriguing, and that's what draws the character in, where as Jar Jar's character is pretty much straight forward.

And as for the subject of Yoda, the CGI Yoda in Attack of the Clones is a MASSIVE improvement on the rubbish puppet we had in The Phantom Menace, but Yoda in Episode II is one of extremes, as sometimes he looks great, but other times he just looks like the minium of effort and thought went into him. At least, that's my opinion. It may well be stupid, but at least I have two kittens.

I get so sick of hearing SW bashers say that the prequels should have been made like LOTR.

You know what? A SW movie made like LOTR would suck, because that's not what SW is like. SW is more light-hearted, and fast-paced. I love LOTR (I FINALLY got around to seeing the first two-well, I have to finish watching TT) and I love SW too. But they're two different series.

And you know what? I LIKED the prequels, gosh darnit, and I don't care WHO knows it!